|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
Then, using your logic, a microprogrammable microprocessor also could not be
patented. That's a processor whose instruction set (or a great portion thereof)
is provided from an external source at the time of power-on.
Frankly, I definitely do NOT buy this.
FYI: IBM's processing units (e.g., the 360 and 370 series) worked this way and,
by your logic, could not be patented, which, to my knowledge, they were.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
You seem to believe that a programmed array is an inferior implementation of any
functionality. In the event of a machine that is manufactured (initially, at
least) in relatively small quantity, or (at least based on your assertion) where
speed is not a critical factor (I don't agree with your speed assertion, by the
way), you assert that using an FPGA would render that functionality
non-patentable. This would deprive the builder of a prototype or small quantity
of the device using it of patent protections! (In case you don't know it,
having custom circuitry built is MUCH more expensive than using FPGA(s).)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|